Road Safety Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Clause 21 - Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers

Nicholas Winterton: Before I ask the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) to resume his remaining few remarks, may I indicate to the Committee that I have an instinct that we will make extremely rapid progress this afternoon, as we have already discussed some of the most important aspects of the Bill? I like speed.

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 90, in clause 21, page 25, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 91, in clause 21, page 25, line 28, column 2, leave out ‘unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured’ and insert ‘unlicensed or disqualified’.
No. 93, in clause 21, page 25, line 33, column 3, leave out ‘summarily’.
No. 94, in clause 21, page 25, column 4, leave out lines 33 to 39.
No. 92, in clause 21, page 25, line 35, column 2, leave out ‘unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured’ and insert ‘unlicensed or disqualified’.

Greg Knight: I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this group of amendments, particularly as at present the Opposition are level pegging with the Government in terms of numbers of Members present. If we have to go to a Division, we may have a tied vote.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. As a matter of information, the occupant of the Chair votes to maintain the status quo if there is a tied vote, so it would not, in fact, be a tied vote.

Greg Knight: I am grateful, Sir Nicholas, and I notice that Labour Members, who have obviously had a big lunch, have now swelled the ranks on the Government side of the Committee.
Driving without insurance is a serious matter, and, personally, I resent having to pay £30 or £40 a year extra on my insurance premium to cover the cost of yobs and ne’er-do-wells who drive around without insurance. I believe that if someone is convicted of  driving a car without insurance, the police ought to have the right to seize the vehicle and to maintain custody of it until the fine is paid, and if someone is guilty of a second or subsequent offence, I would allow the law to see the vehicle forfeited.
The point of questioning the Minister on the clause is that one can treat driving without insurance as a serious matter, and causing death by dangerous driving is already a serious matter in our law. Why does the Minister believe that he needs this extra power? Some people might say that it is superfluous. Why is the offence necessary if the offence of driving without insurance attracts a harsh punishment? Would not that be a better way of proceeding? Why has the Minister made no provision to ensure that those who can show good mitigating circumstances are not provided with some form of statutory defence to being charged in addition to any other charges under the clause?

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome you back to the Chair for these proceedings, Sir Nicholas. It is a great pity that you were not here this morning, as you would have enjoyed what was an excellent debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of a new offence of causing death by careless driving. We had an excellent debate on which the Government, as one might predict, won the vote.
I mention that because the crux of the debate was the crossover between causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving. The clause that we are considering now takes that debate and throws it in the dustbin, as it introduces a new offence: causing death by driving, which can be aggravated by driving without a licence, while disqualified or without the benefit of insurance.
I do not know why the Government want this new species of causing death by driving. The clause states:
“A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road”.
There must be an element of fault or culpability for someone to be guilty of causing the death of another person; if that element of fault or culpability exists, they must have caused the death by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving. How can the offence ever be of practical use? If there is sufficient evidence of culpability, the indictment will include the charge of causing death by dangerous or careless driving, and if that person is subject to further allegations of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, whether disqualified or without insurance, those charges can also appear on the indictment or in the summary complaint. The penalty for that is less than that for causing death by careless or dangerous driving by a significant margin, so the worst that can happen is that someone who has a conviction for causing death by dangerous or careless driving will have that finding recorded and an endorsement or will have a concurrent sentence placed on their driver’s record. What will that achieve?
If I were the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna), I would feel somewhat aggrieved with the Minister and it may be fortunate that she is not here  to hear this. This morning the Minister told us that her suggestion that the offence should be causing injury by dangerous driving was one that the Government would not support because, inter alia, there was insufficient space to accommodate people in prison. If there is space to send people to prison under this clause, I suggest that there should be space under the provision that the hon. Lady was keen for us to have.
I cannot see any purpose in this provision and I do not see how it will be used in practical terms, but if the Minister can give us an explanation, I will listen to it carefully.

Stephen Ladyman: Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. Glutton for punishment is the phrase that springs to mind.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) cannot see the purpose of the clause. I can only say that it is a good job he is not sitting on this side of the Committee Room. There is clearly a need for the provision. If I was unconvinced of that, I became convinced in my surgery last Friday afternoon when the partner of Mr. John Living, who used to live in my constituency, came to see me. Mr. Living was killed while driving his motor bike by an individual who was uninsured and unlicensed. Mr. Living’s partner came to see me in great distress, because she had been at the trial of the individual concerned last week when he was fined the grand sum of £100. She did not believe that that adequately represented the crime that had been committed by someone who should not have been on the road at all and who had taken the life of her boyfriend.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister accept that the clauses that we discussed earlier dealing with careless driving would adequately cover the situation he outlined and that someone who is not insured or is driving without a licence could be dealt with separately?

Stephen Ladyman: No, because the offence will be used when careless or dangerous driving is not appropriate. I return to the points made by Conservative Front Benchers, who asked whether it would be sufficient for someone to be charged under the offence if they were involved in an accident and all they were doing was driving. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) mentioned a Scottish MP, who had forgotten briefly to renew their insurance and was involved in an accident caused by some yobs driving carelessly after coming out of a pub, thus creating a scenario in which this Scottish MP was involved in an accident in which someone died. The clause clearly says that one must cause the accident. In other words, the scenario suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would not have applied in this case. The law dealing with causation is well set out and would be applied by the courts in the way that it is already. If an individual was driving along uninsured or unlicensed and a child ran out in front of him and was killed, this law could apply.

Alistair Carmichael: No.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is shouting no. One minute he is asking me questions, and the next he proposes to know the answers to them. I am telling him that under those circumstances, the law could be used. The law could not be used in a multiple car pile-up on a motorway where an unlicensed or uninsured individual was at the back of the queue and was therefore clearly not a key player in the accident that led to the death.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has already made it very clear that there has to be some element of causation. If there is an element of causation, a charge under the offence of causing death by dangerous, careless or even inconsiderate driving would be open and it would be the appropriate charge to bring.

Stephen Ladyman: The whole point of the clause is to catch a person in cases where one could not prove that they had been driving carelessly or dangerously, but whose presence on the road was directly responsible for the accident. In other words, the accident could not possibly have happened without their presence on the road, driving illegally. This will be the instance in a very small number of cases, and I hope that that answers the point raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the number of people who might be caught by the provision. I think it was the hon. Gentleman who talked about the huge number of people who will end up being put in prison.
Normally, the offence of causing death by careless driving, or the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, would be used. The offence we are discussing would be used for the very small number of cases where those charges would not be appropriate, but where owing to their presence on the road the individual concerned is directly responsible for the accident and is not an incidental bystander in that accident.

Alistair Carmichael: If the presence of that person on the road is directly responsible, to use the Minister’s words, surely there must be some element of carelessness, inconsideration or danger.

Stephen Ladyman: Absolutely not. We dealt with many situations this morning where someone might have been involved in an accident that could not and ought not to be defined as careless, but where that individual was directly responsible for the accident—the accident could not have happened without the presence of that individual on the road. The clause will deal with situations where the direct presence of that individual on the road is such that the accident could not have happened without them. They cannot be just an innocent bystander in an accident that was clearly caused by the carelessness or dangerous driving of someone else.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned little old ladies and the different way that they would need to be treated if they had forgotten to renew their insurance for a day or two, as opposed to the yob he described who is a multiple ignorer of insurance requirements. We do not need to deal with  that in the Bill, because it would be treated as a mitigating circumstance by the court. Were we to try, we could not possibly produce a comprehensive list of mitigating circumstances. We would be bound to miss one, so it is much better to leave it to the discretion of the court. I would expect the court to deal very differently with someone who can demonstrate a long history of having insurance but had a momentary lapse of concentration and did not renew it for a day or two.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. He has gone a long way towards satisfying my concerns about the clause. I can see that, where the only surviving witness to an incident is the defendant, who gives a version of events that is such that it would be difficult to sustain a conviction of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, but has not bothered to take out a licence or become insured, the state rightly feels that a more serious punishment should be inflicted. I think that the Minister’s explanation is a good one, but he is also right that it will apply in only a small number of cases.

Stephen Ladyman: Indeed, a very small number of cases.
I shall conclude with this remark, in the hope that I will finally convince the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It clearly cannot follow that causation always involves carelessness. If it did, anybody who was prosecuted for careless driving would always be found guilty, because we would always be able to demonstrate that an accident happened. The hon. Gentleman seems to take the view that, because an accident happened, somebody must have been careless. That clearly is not the case.
This is a specific clause to deal with the small number of cases where the individual is involved in such a way that the accident could not possibly have happened—
Mr. Carmichaelrose—

Stephen Ladyman: I am just winding up my comments, but the hon. Gentleman can seek to catch your eye again, Sir Nicholas, if he wishes to.
The clause deals with the small number of cases where the individual is involved in an accident that could not possibly have happened without their presence on the road and where they are driving while uninsured or unlicensed. I believe that it is important, and I am sure that the constituent who came to see me in my surgery on Friday would consider it to be essential, as I suspect many on the Government Benches do.

Stephen Hammond: As I said this morning, Conservative Members recognised both the purpose and the import of the clause. We were concerned about a number of issues, on which we wanted to probe the Minister, and his explanation was extremely helpful. Clearly we had misunderstood something in the  briefing. He has put the issue back into perspective, particularly the point of causation, which we were probing initially.
The other point that we have been probing, as the Minister knows, relates to people with an insurance record that is incomplete for only a short time. I accept his explanation about the courts accepting mitigating circumstances. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Patrick McFadden: May I ask the Minister to clarify the clause and to say how it would relate to a case from my constituency. We had a debate earlier today about the distinction between careless and dangerous driving. The case that I want to raise breaches the law in so many respects that it is difficult to know under which clause it might most appropriately be raised.
Perhaps I may take the Minister through the case. It relates to a constituent called Kenneth Taylor, who was recently jailed for five years after a fatal accident, in which the passenger in his car was killed. It transpired during the trial that he had been banned from the roads 10 times previously, he was over the alcohol limit when the crash occurred, he had traces of Ecstasy and cannabis in his system and, perhaps most shockingly of all, he had never taken a driving test.
The clause refers to unlicensed and disqualified drivers, but this case clearly goes far beyond carelessness and raises serious questions about the way in which the current system operates. The questions that I think my constituents would ask are these: how can a driver face court order after court order, which he or she apparently ignores, and how can a jail sentence be imposed only after a fatal accident? I refer the Committee to the words of the judge in the case, who said:
“The tragic consequences of your incompetence are clear for us all to see. If ever there was a case where it could be predicted the disregard of a court order would have tragic results, this is it.”
In what way would the clause and the new measures relating to unlicensed and disqualified drivers deal with a situation where someone defied court order after court order?
I am sure that the Minister will agree that we should not have to wait for a fatal accident before a custodial sentence can be imposed on someone who clearly has no regard for the driving laws and is prepared to breach them time after time, resulting in the tragic death of one passenger and injury to another passenger in the car. I should be grateful if the Minister could outline how the clause will deal with similar situations in the future.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend raises a tragic and horrible case. Without knowing all the details, I find it difficult to give him a precise answer. From what he has described, at least in relation to the final act which caused the death, the clause would be appropriate and the individual could have been charged under it.  However, it sounds as if the courts charged him under other legislation, possibly that of causing death by careless driving while under the influence, which is already a serious offence.
Judges always seem keen to point out the error of people’s ways and are often swift to point out the error of the Government’s way when they think that we have got things wrong, but they are always rather slow to point the finger at their colleagues. If the individual had been disqualified 10 times, there were eight previous occasions after the first time he was disqualified when judges could have given him a custodial sentence or taken other measures against him and seem not to have done so. Why that happened I have no idea, without looking at the facts of the case.

Brian Iddon: On Second Reading I described the cases of Billy Joe Dean and Gareth Willis, in which those causing the deaths were guilty of multiple offences. The sentences that were applied in both cases were very similar: one was even less than the five years that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden) described in relation to his case. What aggrieves the families most is that the courts are not totting up the multiple offences. Moreover, they do not seem to have realised that the maximum sentence has shifted and that causing death by dangerous driving can now gain a maximum sentence of 14 years rather than 10.
I am very condemnatory of the very lenient sentences given by the courts, and that is the general feeling of my constituents who have been involved in fatalities. However, it is worse than that, as nobody serves the full sentence. If they are on good behaviour in prison, they are released early. They are released early in any case, so 50 per cent. of the sentence is not served. People can be out of prison very quickly after an offence has been committed.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I probably cannot say much more without knowing the facts of all the cases, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is now 14 years, and the courts need to be prepared to use it when appropriate. Of course, they must take into account all the facts of the case and mitigating circumstances that may not be obvious to the victim’s family or to the rest of us, so we should not be too quick to judge.
I can undertake to communicate the views and experiences of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) to my colleagues in the Home Office and ask them to think about whether it might be appropriate to review sentencing guidelines and to talk to others in the judicial system about whether the powers that exist are being used as fully as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 22, page 27, line 20, at end insert—
‘(d)at the relevant time the vehicle has a Statutory Off Road Notification.’.
I am aware of your stricture, Sir Nicholas, that we should move a little faster this afternoon. After the two important debates on clauses 20 and 21, I am sure that the Committee will be able to proceed with some speed.
Amendment No. 64 is a probing amendment. The offence is keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance requirements. Keepers will not commit any offence if the vehicle is kept off the road, and rightly so. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has spoken several times in this Committee about his fleet of cars. I have no doubt that at any one time some of them are off the road.
As I understand it, keepers will have filled out a statutory off-road notice in most cases, but some vehicles may have been off the road since before January 1998 and therefore the owners will not have completed a SORN. The amendment proposes an exemption if someone has a SORN. Although it is the Government’s intention that that exemption should exist, it is not in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve with the amendment, but it is not necessary to put that exemption in the Bill as it will be included in regulations. I give him an absolute assurance that as long as someone has declared their vehicle to be off-road and obtained a SORN for it, they will not be liable for any penalty.
The hon. Gentleman’s other amendment would increase the penalty from £100 to £1,000 and three penalty points—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. That amendment comes in a moment or two—and I hope that it will be a moment or two.

Stephen Hammond: With those assurances from the Minister, we shall look forward to ensuring that the exemption is included in the regulations. I accept his assurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 22, page 28, line 37, leave out ‘£100’ and insert
‘£1,000 and 3 penalty points.’.
The amendment addresses what is potentially quite a serious offence. We are concerned about people who habitually break the law and try to kid the authorities or the insurance companies. They are not slip-of-the-mind offenders or offenders with mitigating circumstances.
Five per cent. of drivers on the roads today do not bother with insurance. Those drivers are 10 times more likely to be convicted of drink driving, six times more likely to be convicted of unsafe driving, and three times more likely to be convicted of driving without due care and attention. I contend that if they are prepared to do those things, they are equally likely to be keepers of vehicles without insurance, so let us catch them before they go on the roads and drive.
Driving without third party insurance attracts a £5,000 fine and six to eight penalty points at the moment. The Bill proposes a fixed penalty of £100 and a fine of £1,000 if prosecuted. That is simply not enough. The people the Minister wants to catch are precisely those we should be catching so that we can improve road safety. They keep their vehicles without insurance and if they can get away with it they drive them without insurance. The fine is too low, not a deterrent and is often less than the insurance payment. Let us make the fine worth something.

Stephen Ladyman: Nobody will out-bid me on the need to be tough with uninsured drivers. In my view, uninsured drivers should ultimately see their vehicles going into the crusher and our only debate should be whether the drivers should be in them at the time. However, to reach that position we must catch people and to catch them we must create the new offence that we shall discuss when we come to the stand part debate. You may allow me, Sir Nicholas, to anticipate that debate by saying that we are creating a new offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle that has not been declared to be off the road. By doing that, we will be able to check even more thoroughly from the record than at present. We will know whose cars are registered and whether they are off the road, and we will be able to check the electronic insurance database and to find out whether they are uninsured. We will know in future whether they are taxed. We will be able to do all that without even requiring a policeman to go out and see someone.
The penalty for the offence has been set at a relatively low level because we are not changing the importance of not driving without insurance. The penalty will remain at a £5,000 fine and six to eight points to reflect the seriousness of driving without insurance. We have just had a debate about the serious risks to other road users from driving without insurance.
The consequence of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment to increase the penalty from £100 to £1,000 and three penalty points strikes me as disproportionate. If someone were guilty of a momentary lapse of concentration, as we discussed earlier, and simply forgot to issue the off-road notice but the vehicle was not being driven on a public road and was standing on their path, the hon. Gentleman would fine them £1,000 and impose three points. I am sure that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire declares all his 15 vehicles off-road if they are, but if he  did not he would incur a fine of £15,000 and 45 points. That might be a reason to accept the amendment, but I suspect that most people would judge that to be a bit over the top. I strongly recommend that the hon. Member for Wimbledon stick with our figure of £100.

Stephen Hammond: During the previous debate, the Minister argued that a slip of the mind would allow mitigating circumstances to be considered. Surely a slip of the mind for a SORN would also allow mitigating circumstances. If he is so keen on people not driving without insurance, this is the preventive measure that would allow him to be that tough. This is the amendment that would say, “You habitually fail to apply for insurance and you keep your vehicle off the road without insurance with the intent of driving.”

Stephen Ladyman: The penalty of £100 will be a fixed penalty. We hope that it will be sufficient to prod the significant number of habitual non-payers of insurance to think better of it in future. We also hope that it will catch those who are not habitual non-payers of insurance, but are conveniently lax about when they renew and take advantage of the fact that they do not need an insurance certificate until the next time they renew their car tax. The penalty will also target those who take the view that they need insurance only long enough to tax a car, and who cash in the tax and continue to drive without insurance or tax.
In my view, £100 is the appropriate penalty for what is essentially a paper offence; the more serious offence of taking the car on to the road will attract much higher penalties. The hon. Gentleman will see later that schedule 4 specifies the circumstances under which it will be possible to immobilise or take away people’s vehicles. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has returned to his seat in time to hear his hon. Friend propose that he should be liable for 45 penalty points and £15,000 in fines. He will be able to ally himself with me on this amendment.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend will have done the right thing and made his SORN declarations, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.
I hear what the Minister says, although I am surprised at the level at which the Government have set the fine. It is not even as much as the average insurance premium, which might have been a more appropriate level. Should the Government wish to rethink that and come back with an increased fine for the offence, they would have Conservative support. However, I have listened to the Minister and do not wish to delay the Committee any further and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - New Schedule 2A to the Road Traffic Act 1988

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I should like to ask the Minister some quick questions about paragraph 5, entitled “Disputes”, on page 96.
The Minister will agree that the DVLA database is not 100 per cent. perfect. If mistakes are made, how will the disputes procedure work? Will there be an appeal mechanism? Will compensation be paid at the full book value of the vehicle concerned? Will the Minister take us through how the procedure would work, because the issue is left entirely to regulations. The procedure is opaque; it is not at all clear how the procedure would work.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with full details. Clearly, the procedure will have to be set out in the regulations when they are laid. However, I assure him that if an individual’s vehicle is moved or they incur loss through no fault of their own, we will make sure that they are properly compensated. I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee to explain the procedures that will be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 23 - Careless, and inconsiderate, driving

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: We are in favour of the courts having more flexibility. As we understand it, the clause would give a wider range of powers to the courts, so we approve of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Breach of requirements relating to children and seat belts

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in clause 24, page 31, line 13, at end add
‘insert in column (6) (Endorsement) “discretionary” and in column (7) (penalty points) “3”’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Breach of requirement relating to seat belts—
‘In part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in the entry relating to section 14 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, insert in column (6) (Endorsement) “obligatory” and in column (7) (Penalty points) “3”.’.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall deal with the amendment and new clause, which have been tabled to probe the Minister, in fairly short compass.
The effect of new clause 22 would be to add penalty points for a contravention of the law, the imposition of which would be obligatory. I was one of those who were not comfortable with the idea of compulsory seat belts when they were introduced. There may be others present who were of a similar mind. Given what we now tolerate by way of the nanny state, it seems pretty small beer in comparison.
However, where children are concerned, different standards apply and a nanny state or an alternative provision is often a good idea. That is why it would be appropriate to send the message that whatever someone wants to do with their own welfare and safety is a matter for them as an adult, but that the law takes a different view about the treatment and safety of children. For that reason, there is a compelling case to associate penalty points with the failure to secure children properly in the back seat of a car.

Stephen Ladyman: This is one of those issues that reasonable people can dispute reasonably. There is no ethical or philosophical reason why the offence should not be endorseable, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is my view and the Government’s view that the financial penalties are adequate. Faced with those penalties, people will want to obey the rules. The important thing is not so much that we make the offence endorseable, but that we continue to work with the police to encourage them to prosecute people who do not wear seat belts or who allow passengers not to wear them. I am pleased to say that in 2003, the police took action against 145,000 people for such offences, but we must keep up the pressure to achieve that.
Given that the hon. Gentleman is not going to convince me to make the offence endorseable, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment. In any event, it would have made carrying children without a seat belt an endorseable offence in the rear of the car, but not in the front, which I suspect is not what he intended when he drafted his probing amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: My understanding was that carrying children in the front of the car would have been covered by other provisions. The Minister makes a fair point, and as I said, they are probing amendments. He is right: an horrific number of people are caught by the police for the offence every year. I know that because I have prosecuted an horrific number of them over the years. A significant number attend court personally or say by letter that they are prepared to take the financial hit—the financial penalty. For a person to take that view for themselves is a matter for themselves. Children should be treated differently, and the only way in which people are going to take the offence seriously is if they receive points on their licence, rather than a mere financial penalty.
The matter will not go away, and I think that eventually we will have our way. For today, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: We on the Conservative Benches believe that it is anomalous that the fine for someone who does not wear their seat belt in the front is different from that for someone in the back. Anyone who has seen safety videos showing a child or person on the back seat being catapulted over the front seat will know that that does not make sense. The Minister has struck the right balance with clause 24 and we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc.

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in clause 25, page 31, line 33, at end add—
‘(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to an employee driving a vehicle owned by his employer in connection with his employment where he had no reasonable cause to suspect there was anything wrong with the vehicle.’.
We think that there is a flaw in the clause. We understand entirely what the Minister is seeking to achieve, but, as we said in debate in another place, we have concerns about the impact on employees who might be thoroughly professional and responsible drivers. Somebody let loose with a truck worth £100,000 or £150,000 plus its cargo, and who is a highly trained driver, is by data a responsible person. However, unbeknown to him, there might be something faulty with the vehicle. First, it might just be physically impossible to see the fault—it might be in the engine—and secondly, given the complexity of modern vehicles, he might not be technically competent to detect the fault in the first place.
I am concerned with the wording in line 17: “using vehicle”. Should the Minister not have been thinking about the person who is “responsible” for the vehicle? This is one of those grade II probing amendments, and if the Minister can come up with a good explanation for how the sort of person whom I am talking about will be excluded, I will happily withdraw it.

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman is talking up the seriousness with which he approaches the matter, I am concerned about the use of the word “owned” in the amendment. He will be aware that these days many companies do not own their vehicles—they lease them. To my mind, that is an obvious loophole in the amendment.

Owen Paterson: I think that the word that I used was “responsible”. I think that the hon. Gentleman gets the drift of where I am coming from. I am concerned about  employees being caught by the clause, and before we consider supporting the clause I would like the Minister to give a serious reply.

Stephen Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I agree with him entirely; in the circumstances that he described, it would be inappropriate for the individual to be held responsible. Section 48 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides for the following:
“Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 ... the court must not—
(a) order him to be disqualified, or
(b) order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him,
if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person.”
For example, if an employee is ordered to drive a vehicle, so long as he can demonstrate that he did not know, could not reasonably have known and had no grounds for suspecting, that the vehicle was dangerous, clearly, he would have a complete defence against prosecution.

Owen Paterson: Following that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 26, page 32, line 5, after ‘device’, insert
‘except in circumstances where a motor vehicle with a manual gearbox is placed in neutral and the handbrake applied, and a motor vehicle with an automatic gearbox is placed in Park’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Offence of using a mobile phone while cycling—
‘A person who rides a pedal cycle on a public road while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, is guilty of an offence under section 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (dangerous cycling).’.

Owen Paterson: The amendments are probing in nature. They try to address the world as it is rather than as some people might prefer it to be. We contend that in some circumstances, it could be a major safety gain to allow drivers to use a hand-held mobile phone when their vehicles are guaranteed to be stationary. If the car has a manual gearbox, it should be in neutral with the handbrake on, and if it is automatic, the gear lever should be placed firmly in “park”. We are thinking of circumstances such as a young mother caught in a large traffic jam who needs to get a message to her baby-sitter, someone who is collecting a child from school or someone with an elderly relative who needs to warn a carer that they are completely stuck on the M1 and might be stuck for hours. There is a clear case that the mobile phone is a useful safety tool under such circumstances. People have suggested the  possibility of pulling into the nearside lane. When stuck on the M1, as I was the other day, it is not really possible to move lanes.
Ours is a reasonable, common-sense amendment. It is supported by an interesting piece of research that I dug out from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published by Graham, Cohen, Park and Lissy at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. I shall not go into too much detail—it is a lengthy report at 100 pages long—but, in brief, the report says that the scientific evidence to date on cellular phone use while driving is weighted toward the risk to the driver and passengers as well as other road users. Incredibly little research has been done into the benefits to the users of mobile phones—benefits not just to households, social networks and businesses but to whole communities. Many of those benefits, including public health and safety benefits, have not yet been recognised or quantified.
One of the main topics of the report is improved knowledge of emergencies. The authors have evidence from emergency personnel that because motorists use cellular phones from their cars to report emergencies, emergency personnel are better able to anticipate the emergency situation and what type of equipment might be needed. Emergency workers report that they receive information from multiple callers with different views of the same scene and are better able to distribute their vehicles and manpower.
The other important element is the golden hour, a concept originally described by Dr. R. Adams Cowley. The golden hour is the one-hour period following severe injuries during which getting a patient to accident and emergency has an enormous impact. The likelihood of getting that golden hour is increased enormously by the use of mobile phones. A survey in Australia sounded out 700 cellular phone users on the issue. The report’s conclusion is simple. Enormous benefits are gained from being able to use cellular phones at the appropriate moment, but they have not yet been assessed. Very little research has been done.
Our amendment would allow mobile phone use under clear circumstances: in a traffic jam with no prospect of getting to a phone, or in emergency circumstances when it would be sensible to be allowed to use a hand-held phone. We totally endorse the Government’s view that hand-held phones should not under any circumstances be used when a vehicle is moving.
I turn to our new clause on bicycles. I might get myself into trouble with people who are frequently seen in the popular press on their bicycles, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has frequently been seen using his bike. I do not like to conjecture whether he uses his phone; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Henley does. The issue is simple: a bicycle is under better control with two hands on the handlebars, not one hand on the handlebars and the other on a hand-held phone. I do not need to elaborate further.

Greg Knight: I rise to support the common-sense approach of my hon. Friend on the two issues. Of course it is important that we send out a message to motorists to discourage them from using a mobile phone or other interactive device while they are driving—in the normal sense of the word. I think it was Lord Reid who in a famous case decided that when a motorist is stationary in a queue of traffic, intending to continue his journey, he is still driving in the legal sense, even though the car is not in motion and no other road user is at risk from his activities at that moment in time. As presently drafted, the law could lead to a police officer walking down a line of cars that are stuck in a traffic jam, giving out tickets to motorists who happen to be on the telephone.
Yesterday, I had the misfortune to be stuck in a traffic jam on the M1 motorway between junctions 29 and 28. Presumably due to the incompetence of two or more motorists, there had been a collision, and the radio reports indicated that two lanes of the motorway were closed. The length of my journey was increased by approximately one hour and 15 minutes. As it happened, however, I did not have to reschedule any meetings.

Henry Bellingham: Which car were you in?

Greg Knight: I was in a Mercedes-Benz.

Henry Bellingham: Not the Ferrari.

Greg Knight: I do not own a Ferrari. It occurs to me that it would be more, not less, likely to increase the road rage of a driver in such a position if he felt that he could not telephone ahead to inform those he was seeking to meet that he had been unavoidably delayed. How much more that would be true of a young mother held in a traffic jam who realises that she will not be there to meet her child at the school gates. Not everyone has the benefit of a hands-free car kit. If she could use the phone, her mind would be put at rest, and the safety of the child would be assured.
There should be a common-sense approach. I well remember that, some 20 years ago, I had attended a concert with a musician friend of mine, and was travelling home with him in the band’s van. He knew a short cut. The road was controlled by some temporary traffic lights because of a trench that was being dug, but the stretch of road was perfectly straight for at least half a mile. I am sure that the temporary traffic lights were necessary during the daytime, but it was 2 am and my friend’s van was the only vehicle travelling in our direction. There were no other vehicles on the road—certainly none coming the other way.
The temporary traffic lights were on red and my friend did something he should not have done. It was 2 am, he could see that there were no other vehicles about, so he went through the red light. Guess what happened, Sir Nicholas. As soon as he was through the red light, two police officers jumped out of a hedge, pulled him over, and gave him a ticket for going through a red light.
There we have police officers in a rural area, hiding in a hedge to catch a motorist going through red lights at 2 am when there were no other vehicles around. I know that, without the amendment, there will be some regulation-ridden, pen-pushing nincompoop of a police officer, who will go down a line of parked cars, giving out tickets to people who are using a telephone. Even though it is quite safe for them to do so, they will be guilty of an offence because technically they will be driving.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendment.

Sally Keeble: Having just collected my children, which is why I was delayed, and knowing what a nuisance it is if people use mobile phones, I think that it is reasonable to include the provision. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree? If people want to phone, they can park and get out of their cars. The much bigger risk, which the provision is designed to prevent, is people driving around when children are crossing the road, stopping and starting and posing a real risk to the safety of those children.

Greg Knight: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s conclusion. In the incident in which I was involved on the M1, it would have been highly dangerous to encourage motorists to get out of their cars and wander across to the hard shoulder to use the telephone. The car in front of the car in front and all cars as far as one could see were stationary. Let me put the question back to her: what danger does she see in a motorist using a telephone when he is in a traffic jam with his vehicle in park or with the hand brake on?

Sally Keeble: The problem in a built-up area is that the jam can start to move. Children can run in front of the cars because they think that they are parked. One’s attention can be elsewhere and there can be an accident. One has only to do a regular school run to know that. If one is on the M1, one can pull in to service stations and other places in order to make phone calls.

Greg Knight: The hon. Lady has not answered the question that I put to her. I am talking about being in a traffic jam on the M1, from which one cannot pull over, and being clear that one will be in that position for some time. When I am on a normal A road or in a town centre, temporarily stuck in traffic, I do not put my car in park or have the hand brake on, because I expect to move away fairly shortly.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman seems more concerned about people being caught breaking the law than he is about whether they are actually breaking it. He mentioned earlier that we should take a common-sense approach. Would it not be common sense, instead of looking for  opportunities to relax or even break the law, to encourage people to buy hands-free sets? Those can be bought in most service stations for less than a tenner.

Greg Knight: I am anxious to ensure that, as far as possible, people are not able to say in respect of particular legislation that the law is an ass. If one is stationary in a queue and one’s vehicle—if it is automatic—is in park, one’s hand brake is on, and one is using a phone that is not a hands-free device, what danger is one posing to other road users? I venture to suggest that the answer is none. That is why I believe that a common-sense approach should be taken to the provision.

Tom Harris: Surely the danger from a legal perspective is that we are leaving it to the driver to decide what kind of traffic jam he or she is in. Is it one that will be stationary for the next 20 minutes or for one minute? Would not the right hon. Gentleman’s approach open up a new range of work for lawyers: pleading specific circumstances in favour of a particular defendant? It should not be up to individual drivers to decide that they are in a particular type of traffic jam. They are either in charge of a vehicle or they are not, and the law must be clear—for good reasons.

Greg Knight: I have a greater confidence in the common sense of a good motorist than the hon. Gentleman does. There are circumstances, such as a long-term traffic jam, in which it is safe to use the telephone. Responsible motorists would not dream of using a telephone if they felt that their delay was of a transitory nature only, and that the queue was about to move. I am not with him on that point.
On new clause 11, I support my hon. Friend. Too often, people who ride on our highways on pedal cycles think that they are exempt from the laws of motoring. Yesterday, after I had managed to survive the hour-and-a-quarter delay on the M1, I went to my house in Pimlico and then drove to this House down Warwick way, a fairly straight road with several sets of traffic lights. In Warwick way, I saw two cyclists, one with no hands on the handle bars—one hand was holding his mobile phone and the other was dangling by his side. His friend, who was cycling alongside him, was alternating between riding on the road and on the pavement. These two characters went through three sets of red traffic lights in Warwick way.

Rosemary McKenna: The right hon. Gentleman followed them.

Greg Knight: I did not follow them, but because it was a straight road I could see them. It was just about lighting-up time but they had no lights on their bikes. Sometimes, one wishes that the police would show the same enthusiasm for stopping pedal cyclists who break the law as they do for stopping motorists when they do the same.

Stephen Hammond: I rise to support the common-sense amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). The  word “driving” in road traffic legislation is extremely wide, and the answer to the question about the traffic jam is that it is a traffic jam in which the person concerned has decided to apply their handbrake or to put their car into “park” so that they are stationary. The amendment makes that clear; the vehicle will be stationary only in those circumstances.
With reference to new clause 11, if people use a mobile phone while cycling they present a hazard to themselves and to other road users. We should be sending a strong message to all road users that, if they use a mobile phone while driving, they will not be paying sufficient care and attention to what is happening to them, and will put themselves and others in danger.
I suspect that the Minister will tell us that there is already an offence of being in charge of a cycle while not properly in control of it, and that using a mobile phone while cycling demonstrates that the cyclist is not cycling properly or safely. If cycling while using a mobile phone is an unsafe and undesirable practice, and the Government are aware of it, why should there be a specific offence that applies to motorists, but no such offence for cyclists? The Minister will have to provide an extremely convincing response or accept the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman: I hope that I will provide a convincing response. The closest I came to agreeing with the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Shropshire was when they said that the police should do a lot more to enforce road traffic legislation in respect of cyclists. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned his experience the other day. I suspect that the two individuals he described were committing at least four offences for which they could have been stopped and prosecuted, irrespective of whether a new offence is created. There is indeed already an offence of not being in proper control of one’s cycle, which is quite adequate to deal with the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman described. What is lacking at present is the unwillingness of the police to enforce that legislation, a matter that I will discuss at my regular meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Last week, on two occasions, I saw a cyclist riding his bicycle the wrong way round Parliament square in front of at least four police officers standing at the gates of Speaker’s Court. If that person was not even stopped and told to be more sensible, is it any wonder that cyclists largely ignore the highway code? However, there is already legislation to deal with the matter. We do not need the amendment, which would just be another piece of legislation for some of those people to ignore. What we need is to encourage the police to deal with them.
During this debate, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire confessed to two things that surprised me. I always thought he was a car lover who understood motor cars, but I now discover that he has neither a Ferrari nor an Alfa Romeo, which says to me that he has no judgment whatever about Italian machinery. He also tells me that he puts his car “in park”, which means that he is driving an automatic, so in my book he is no lover of driving.
The right hon. Gentleman describes scenarios, such as when one is in a traffic jam on the motorway. The hon. Member for North Shropshire mentioned similar events. In such circumstances, if people are phoning to say that they are stuck, immobile and cannot get on, why cannot we leave it to the police to use common sense about not booking them? That is what I would recommend. If we go down the route suggested by the Conservatives and set some criteria determining when people are not driving their car, what would sort of situation would we end up with? The second a policeman tapped on a person’s window, saying, “Hey, you! You’re using a mobile phone,” the person would whip their car into neutral, put the handbrake on and say, “I can use my mobile phone in these circumstances. I’m not driving my car.”
Having called all Vehicle and Operator Services Agency officials swinish followers of the law the other day, the right hon. Gentleman has now referred to those honourable boys and girls in blue as nincompoops. If I were him, I would keep my 15 vehicles well away from the highway any time in the next few months.
It is reasonable for a policeman to stop people using a mobile phone when he sees them driving up to a traffic light and can stop them without causing any danger or inconvenience to other road users. However, the Conservative amendment would allow people to pull up to the traffic lights, use their handbrake and say, “Sorry, officer, I’m not driving my vehicle so I don’t need to listen to what you say about the use of my mobile phone.”

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend pre-empts my point about the amendment, which would, as it is worded, allow anyone to stop their car and put it in “park”, which many people already do at traffic lights. He has used that form of words because a traffic jam cannot be defined in legislation.
In defence of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, and all of us who use automatic cars, using an automatic enhances the driving experience.

Stephen Ladyman: For once, I shall have seriously to disagree with my hon. Friend. I am of that group of motorists who would never give garage room to an automatic vehicle. However, he is right to say that the amendment would be unenforceable. It is difficult enough already to enforce the rules about using a mobile phone while driving, so trying to define what is meant by driving will just make the situation even worse and more impossible.
My strong advice to Conservative Members is not to refer to the police as nincompoops any more, but trust them to use their common sense, encourage them to enforce the new penalty that we will discuss in the clause stand part debate and ensure that people stop using their mobile phone while driving. I remind Opposition Members, before they think that there may be any votes in being soft on the use of mobile phones while people are driving, that in the Christmas poll organised by Radio 4, that was voted the second most annoying offence that people see committed in this country. The public at large expect the police to start  getting tough about it and the clause gives the police that power. I am afraid that the Conservative amendments would weaken their ability to enforce it.

Owen Paterson: I was not wholly convinced by the Minister’s response. I stress immediately that the Conservatives do not endorse the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving. We were addressing circumstances—we have to repeat this—where the vehicle was clearly stationary. There is also a safety angle, which the Minister did not address. I should like him to look at the research in America, which suggests that there are real safety advantages from drivers having mobile phones.

Stephen Ladyman: One of the problems we face with the internet Sir Nicholas, of which I am a great fan—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Dr. Stephen Ladyman, did I hear a mobile telephone? A Blackberry? I am very conscious of mobile telephones at this moment.

Stephen Ladyman: Sir Nicholas, I am a great fan of the internet, but it has two problems. One is that my constituents in the Friday afternoon surgery are usually better informed about issues than me. The second is that it allows Conservative Members to trawl for research that they would otherwise never find and that tends not to be very well peer reviewed. I can assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that the research we have done makes it clear that the use of mobile phones is dangerous. Indeed, the use of hands-free phone kits is also very dangerous and we need to do anything we can to clamp down on it.

Owen Paterson: I think the internet is good if it brings information from as far away as the United States to the Minister’s attention to show the security benefits of mobile phones. This was a 100-page report, which I hope someone in his office may get to read. However, we want to move on.
I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s response, but we will reflect further and may well come back to the matter on Report. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 29, page 33, line 28, leave out ‘“6”’ and insert ‘“3-6”’.
Clause 29 amends part 1 of schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offences Act by raising from three to six the number of penalty points that can be imposed for  failing to provide information about the identity of a driver. We have a concern that the provision would severely reduce the discretion that the courts had in this area. The Minister spoke long and hard about the discretion and centrality of the courts and police officers. By moving from three to six points, we will give the courts no discretion and no ability to consider the circumstances of the case, which means that injustices will occur.
We have no problem with the maximum end of the points being raised to six, which as I understand it, would correspond with the maximum for speeding. We remain concerned that the flexibility that the courts have is being removed. The Minister was waxing lyrical this morning about the ability of the courts to distinguish the gradients of the offence of carelessness. I therefore assume that he will agree that in these circumstances they will have the ability to be flexible and show discretion.
The amendment does not seek to require a leniency option. It merely gives the courts the discretion to decide, in the circumstances of various cases, whether they should give three or six points. A case which is often cited is where the husband and wife drive cars interchangeably. Who can remember who was driving which car at a particular point? My wife and I drive our cars interchangeably, although we describe my car as the Audi and hers as the Renault. None the less, we drive them interchangeably and there are certainly days where I could not be sure which one of us was necessarily driving which car.
Perhaps more importantly, there is the scenario where there are multiple drivers using one vehicle. That could happen in distribution companies, post offices and a large number of utility companies, where it is quite possible that one vehicle is used by numerous people during the week and possibly even during a single day. An offence could occur. Subsequently, a request for the provision of details of the driver is issued which may be difficult to provide. All the amendment is seeking to do, in line with the Minister’s desire elsewhere in the Bill, is to introduce that element of common sense, which will allow the courts to use their discretion. I trust that the Minister will have no problem with that.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Wimbledon may have no problem with the change that the Government have made, but I do. On this occasion, the Government and Conservative Members, especially the Conservatives, are being unduly soft. I should like anything up to and including a period of disqualification for contravention of section 172. In terms of its use by the police for the investigation of road traffic incidents after the event and the operation of cameras, section 172 is crucial. It is a very useful provision for the police. There is a growing prevalence of the use of speed cameras. There have been some well-documented cases of people trying to evade their duties under section 172, and occasionally doing so successfully, so the full range of penalties should be available to the court.
I return to my point that the prospect of losing a licence certainly concentrates the mind. Section 172 is one of the most important sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and it is becoming more important. The Government are going in the right direction, but I hope that the Minister considers increasing the number of penalty points. For the worst cases—there are some bad cases—disqualification should be made an option.

Greg Knight: I understand why the Government want the provision in the Bill. If a motorist was exceeding the speed limit greatly and was aware that a speed camera had been triggered, he might decide that, if he claimed that he did not know who was driving, it would be worth three points rather than his admitting that he was driving and probably receiving six points for the much more serious offence of greatly exceeding the speed limit. I understand why the Government want to plug the gap, but I cannot understand why they are not willing to adopt the flexible approach suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon to allow the courts to judge the case on its merits.
When the House debated the Bill in the previous Parliament, which fell because of the election, I drew the attention of the Committee to an incident that involved the Conservative candidates for the European Parliament during the previous European elections in my county. They were lent two jeep vehicles by a party supporter to use during their campaigning. The insurance was such that it covered anyone driving for the campaign. The vehicles were chopped and changed between the candidates and campaign managers. Three weeks later, a ticket arrived on the desk of the owner of the vehicles because one of the jeeps had triggered a speed camera. An offence had been committed but, at that stage, no one was sure who had been driving the jeep in question when it triggered the speed camera. I must say that the triggering was minimal; it was three or four miles over the speed limit.
Let us consider the circumstances in which the owner genuinely did not know who was driving the car. Clearly, he owned the vehicle and must shoulder some responsibility, but it seems unfair that the owner must take six points when, if the culprit had come forward, the culprit would have received only three points. The Minister is taking matters too much the other way. He is correcting a loophole in the law but, by making the offence carry more points than a motorist may receive in certain cases, he has gone too far.

Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is right; he has put his finger on why we are making the change. If we did not, and someone was due to receive a six-point penalty for driving well over the speed limit, they would do better for themselves by saying that they did not know who was driving, and taking three points.
There is a defence for the circumstances outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, although now that I know it will be used to defend Conservative candidates, I  might consider amending it. Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides a defence where a person
“did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle ... was.”
In such circumstances, the individual will not be penalised at all.
I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the change and that it provides the reassurance that the hon. Member for Wimbledon sought on a defence being available. I have noted that he regards the Audi as his vehicle and the Renault as his wife’s. I can only say that that is very sexist but entirely understandable.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is one that reasonable people can have a reasonable disagreement about, but I undertake to reflect on his views before Report.

Greg Knight: If the situation is as the Minister describes, he will have fully answered my concerns. While I am speaking, may I try to regain a little bit of street cred with him by saying that only half my vehicles are automatic? Two of them are Jensens. One is a Jensen Interceptor; the other is a Jensen C-V8. I have to tell him that an automatic gearbox does not lessen the experience of driving those cars.

Stephen Ladyman: I look forward to joining the right hon. Gentleman on a drive sometime. I will be in my Alfa and he can be in his Jensen.

Stephen Hammond: One reason why my wife agrees that the Audi is my car is that it has had slightly more accidents, but that is another story.
If the situation is as the Minister described, the reason why we sought flexibility in clause 29 is covered. I am sure that readers of Hansard will be amused to discover that flexibility is required in one case and absolutes are required in others. None the less, given the Minister’s reassurance on the point that I raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Meaning of driving without due care and attention

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I rise to speak on clause 30 somewhat ruefully. You missed an interesting debate this morning, Sir Nicholas. I will not repeat what was said, but we proposed new clauses that would have set a cascading scale, with reckless driving being driving that fell “far below” what would be expected of a competent driver and dangerous driving being “significantly” below that. We felt that that was in tune with clause 30, which we had not reached at that point. It suggests that a simple definition of “careless, or inconsiderate, driving” be set in statute, which is driving that falls below what would be expected of
“a competent and careful driver”.
We thought that our new clauses would set a wholly logical new framework of law of which the new definition in clause 30 formed an integral part. It is somewhat ruefully, therefore, that we support clause 30 as it stands.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister want to reply?

Stephen Ladyman: Only to say that I mentioned in this morning’s debate that we had carried out a thorough consultation on the offences that we are discussing. The consultation suggested that although we had an adequate statutory definition of dangerous driving, which is that it falls far below the standard normally accepted, there ought to be a further definition in statute of what careless driving constitutes. That is why we have tabled the clause. Far from being in any way contradictory to the comments that I made in this morning’s debate, it is this clause that makes sense of those comments. It explains why we do not need the more graduated definitions of dangerous, reckless and the other standards of driving proposed by the hon. Member for North Shropshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Alternative verdict on unsuccessful culpable homicide prosecution

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 32, page 34, line 29, at end add—
‘(d)an offence under section 3 of that Act (careless driving).”’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 70, in clause 33, page 35, line 7, at end add—
‘(e)an offence under section 3 of that Act (careless driving).”’.

Owen Paterson: These are probing amendments. Under the framework set up in the clause, if I understand it, if culpable homicide fails a case of dangerous driving could be brought. They are probing amendments to see whether within the rules of double jeopardy it would be possible in the case of dangerous driving also to be caught by the definition of careless driving.

Stephen Ladyman: Not being a lawyer, I may fall into dangerous territory. If I mislead the Committee I will, of course, write and correct it. I understand that if one is charged with an offence such as manslaughter, the alternative offences are offered by the judge to the jury if he believes that they cannot reach a decision on the substantive indictment. That will mean that dangerous driving can be an alternative verdict in a case where  manslaughter is alleged. We have already made it clear that causing death by careless driving would be an alternative verdict when someone was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Owen Paterson: Does that mean that there could be a cascade from manslaughter to causing death by dangerous driving to causing death by careless driving?

Stephen Ladyman: Again, as I am not a lawyer I am slightly hesitant, but my understanding is no.

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps the Minister would clarify why the Government have not included within the clause an alternative verdict for the clause that creates the offence of causing death by careless driving? As the Minister will be aware, the range of culpability in respect of culpable homicide can cover events that are low down the scale.

Stephen Ladyman: The rationale for that is that if one has started off with either manslaughter or culpable homicide, our feeling is that it is too far a drop to causing death by careless driving. If one cannot make the case for manslaughter in such circumstances, one would expect to be able to make the case for causing death by dangerous driving, rather than having to cascade all the way down to causing death by careless driving.

Owen Paterson: That was a helpful explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Penalty points

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 34, page 35, line 20, leave out ‘seven’ and insert ‘three’.
The clause enables the courts to offer offenders convicted of certain specified offences the opportunity to undertake a retraining course, which will give them a remission of penalty points. It inserts into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 offences such as careless and inconsiderate driving, failure to comply with traffic signs and speeding. The opportunity to pay for and undertake retraining courses is offered where the driver is not to be disqualified but his licence is to be endorsed with penalty points. The retraining courses can be offered only when the offender has reached at least seven points and no more than 11. That is obvious; otherwise he would be disqualified.
We see what the Minister is driving at, but amendment No. 71 is designed to elicit from him why he has chosen seven penalty points as the starting point for a driver to apply for one of the retraining courses. We believe that they could be more specifically and successfully aimed at first-time or less serious  offenders, so that there is no progression. Indeed, as I understand it, some police forces offer the courses in the place of prosecution, aimed particularly at the lower end of the scale. [Interruption.] They cost between £100 and £135 and should be self-financing.

Stephen Ladyman: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I wonder whether Front Bench spokesmen get three points for using a mobile phone.

Nicholas Winterton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they get six under me.

Stephen Hammond: That is very good news.
The courses are now being extended to the courts, so we are keen to find out why only serious offenders who already have seven points can apply for them. Surely the progression that we discussed earlier is equally important. We should encourage all individuals to be responsible users and should give them an opportunity to attend a retraining course. Surely someone who has only three points would benefit from such a course as much as someone who has seven. It seems sensible to us to try to nip what is irresponsible, bad driving rather than criminal activity in the bud well before someone gets to a massive seven penalty points.
Therefore, I should be interested to hear why the Minister wants to set the level at seven. Will it be simply a matter of resource?

Stephen Ladyman: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The police can already, at their discretion, offer an alternative to three points when they are giving a fixed penalty notice. Typically, they would write to the individual giving them the opportunity to take a training course rather than pay the normal fixed penalty.
We want the courts to have the opportunity to offer courses. The amendment suggests that if the person is about to be given three points—that would indicate that they had not committed any previous offences—they would have the opportunity to take a training course instead of the three points. We thought it more sensible to set the bar a little higher than that so that, by definition, it must be the second offence. The maximum that the person could previously have got is six points, so seven points shows that, at the very least, it is their second offence. In those circumstances clearly a pattern is beginning to set in, which could perhaps be nipped in the bud by sending the individual on a training course, but a pattern had not been established at the first offence. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the individual may already have been sent on a course at the police’s discretion, as a result of having previously been offered a fixed penalty.
Again, this is an issue where reasonable people can have a reasonable disagreement. We have simply decided that the bar should be set slightly higher than the three points in the hon. Gentleman’s probing amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I am sure that this is indeed a case where reasonable people can have a reasonable disagreement, but if two offences have already been  committed I suggest that a pattern is involved already and that things are not then being nipped in the bud. I hope that the Government will review this at some stage and that they might be able to reduce the level at which these courses are introduced. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in clause 34, page 35, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The amendment is designed simply to tease from the Government what other offences they have in mind that could be either added or removed given the qualification on these attendances. We also thought that a period of evaluation, to see whether the scheme works, might be sensible. It is therefore a simple probing amendment so that the Minister can tell us what other offences he may consider adding or removing in future.

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot really help the hon. Gentleman much because at this time we have no such offences in mind. There are no obvious candidates to be added but it would seem sensible to retain this power to do something by regulation, since bringing forward further primary legislation would, clearly, not usually justify Parliament’s time. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have no particular offences in mind here. We simply think it more appropriate to retain the power in the Bill so that we need never come back to the full Chamber in future for primary legislation just to add something that has emerged from changing traffic conditions or changing attitudes to road traffic offences.

Stephen Hammond: Like many colleagues on this side of the Chamber, we have a deep mistrust of secondary legislation by statutory instrument. However, I welcome the Minister’s commendable honesty and am grateful for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Reduced qualification period for attendance on course

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton: I shall take it and listen with great interest.

Greg Knight: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Clause 35 deals with disqualification. My point of order relates to it and to clause 36, which relates to driving tests, to clause 38 on the granting of licences and to any other parts of the Bill or its provisions that may be affected.
Yesterday, the European Union made a decision to apply new rules to driving licences. The testing of motorists applying for driving licences would be co-ordinated. Motorists who are banned from driving in the UK will apparently no longer be able to apply for a licence anywhere else in Europe. The change co-ordinates, for the first time, the testing and licensing requirements for all drivers—of anything from mopeds to lorries—across all 25 member states. There is a full report on that decision in The Times for today, on page 8. It quotes the Minister as saying:
“It’s negative, but we have no choice but to make the best of it”.
The report goes on to say that under the rules, which must be introduced within six years, bus and lorry drivers under the age of 45 must renew their licences and declare that their health is good every five years rather than every 10.
Earlier in proceedings, the Minister said that he had no intention of making any change to the UK’s provision of driving licences. Yet today we read in The Times that the Minister has apparently thrown in the towel and accepted that EU decision.
My point of order is that, surely, the Minister should provide for every member of the Committee a statement about what effect the decision in the European Union will have on our further consideration of those clauses to which I referred and any other parts or provisions that might be relevant. Would not it be appropriate if our proceedings were suspended until he issues the statement to us all?

Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I can say only that I believe that the Minister has heard what has been said.

Stephen Ladyman: Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I am not aware of saying anything that conflicts with what is in the third driving licence directive. Although the directive was agreed yesterday at the European Transport Council, with mine being the only dissenting voice in the entire European Union, it still has to go through Parliament before it can be enacted, and even then, we will have six years in which to so.
The comments in the newspaper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were taken slightly out of context. I was discussing the motorcycle parts of the directive. I freely admit that I believe that they are rigid and unnecessary. They add nothing to motorcycling safety while possibly damaging the motorcycling industry. That part was the reason why I did not support the directive yesterday.
We broadly support the rest of the directive. Our legislation and arrangements are in line with it, but I am happy to undertake to review it, since we shall have to prepare an impact assessment for the European Scrutiny Committee. If there are any differences between what I have said in Committee so far and what we will have to do in the future, I shall write to the Committee to let Members know.

Greg Knight: I am most grateful to the Minister, as I am sure the whole Committee is, for the nature of that response. Many Opposition Members wish that he had had a veto yesterday.

Nicholas Winterton: From the Chair, as it was a point of order, I consider that the Minister has been very helpful in his response. He has indicated that this may not be the last we hear of the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. With that statement from the Minister in reply, we can continue our debate.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 40, line 35, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 35 extends to those people who have committed more serious offences, particularly drink driving, the principle of a rehabilitation scheme and a discount for attending a training course. It applies to those who have been disqualified for 12 months or longer, or those who are about to be disqualified. There is talk on page 63 of the explanatory notes about the success of those courses:
“Only 35 per cent. of all offenders referred to a course actually go on to complete it. Research conducted by the TRL has indicated that the most common reason given by offenders for not attending is cost and difficulty of paying for the course.”
That may be so, but surely part of the reason is that attendance is also non-compulsory.
Amendment No. 81 would make course attendance mandatory. It would not represent a discount for a sentence. The individual would actually have to attend. The additional mandatory attendance and completion of the course would be prerequisites for the return of a licence. The amendment would toughen up the clause significantly. The Government and the Opposition have said that we wish to be tough on serial offenders. Here is the opportunity. By accepting amendment No. 81, the Government would make course attendance additional and a prerequisite for the return of the licence.

Stephen Ladyman: I accept that disqualification from driving is one of the most potent weapons that we have against offences of bad driving, and there are serious powers in the hands of the court. In the quest for new disposals to deal with drink drivers, the review of road traffic law—the so-called North report in 1988—pointed us in the direction of rehabilitation and retraining courses, and the Conservative Government, in the early 1990s, introduced the drink drive rehabilitation scheme.
The principle behind that was that in return for a reduction in the disqualification the offender would pay for, attend and complete a course. The payment arrangement ensured that the cost of providing courses was not borne by the taxpayer. After an experimental period of seven years, research suggested that course attenders were more than two times less likely to reoffend than others who had not benefited from a course. On the strength of those findings, the current Government decided to roll out the scheme to the whole of Great Britain. It is a model that we envisage using under the Bill for other retraining schemes involving courses designed to deal with other aspects of bad driving, such as speeding and carelessness.
By removing subsection (7) from proposed new section 34A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, amendment No. 81 would undermine the scheme completely. Without an incentive to participate in a course an offender would probably not be willing to pay for it. If we want the courts to require offenders to attend such courses, we are moving away from the type of courses for which the clause provides, towards the separate realm of probation, which, among other things, involves additional costs. It is difficult in those circumstances to support the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws it.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He is, of course, not necessarily completely correct on one point. There would be an incentive to attend the courses—it would be a prerequisite to regaining one’s licence. We may well want to return to the matter on Report, and having heard what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Driving tests

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 36, page 44, line 26, after ‘tests”,’ insert—
‘(aa)in paragraph (b), after “conducted” insert “, conditions which must be satisfied during the currency of an appointment, the charging of reasonable fees in respect of applications for appointment or appointments or in connection with any examination or assessment which may be required before appointment or during the currency of any appointment”,’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 103, in schedule 5, page 108, leave out lines 30 and 31.
Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Stephen Ladyman: Section 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, “Tests of competence to drive”, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about such tests. Section 89(3)(b) provides for those regulations to cover the qualifications, selection and appointment of persons to conduct driving tests. That provision is used to enable employees of certain organisations, such as the Ministry of Defence, the police, fire brigades and some bus companies, to conduct driving tests on behalf of the Secretary of State as delegated examiners.
In the modern environment we need flexibility as to the training that a person may need to undertake to become, and remain, approved as a delegated examiner. For example, as delegated examiners need to maintain and develop their expertise following their initial appointment, we would want to discuss with them the introduction of continuing professional development. Thus amendment No. 6 would amend section 89(3)(b) to make the scope of the regulation-making powers more explicit. It would also permit the Secretary of State to charge reasonable fees in connection with the initial, and continuing, approval of delegated examiners. That links with clause 36(5). The combined effect of the provisions is to create an environment in which we can move away from the existing arrangements for recovering the costs incurred by the Driving Standards Agency and the appointment and subsequent quality assurance of delegated examiners.
The DSA currently charges delegated examiners for the supply of the test result certificates that they issue for the driving tests they conduct. Those charges are intended to cover the costs that the DSA incurs in respect of delegated examiners. This is an unsophisticated and blunt recovery mechanism, as the agency’s costs are not directly related to the number of tests conducted by an individual examiner. It is therefore inequitable and at odds with the “user pays” principle. Amendment No. 7 is a consequential amendment, arising from amendment No. 6.
Clause 40 and schedule 5 are on driving instruction. Paragraph 14 of schedule 5 introduces proposed new section 132 examinations. That proposed new section is to the Road Traffic Act 1988, and it permits the Secretary of State to make regulations providing more modern and flexible arrangements in respect of
“examinations of the ability and fitness (or continued ability and fitness) to give driving instruction”,
including
“the qualification, selection and appointment of persons”
who may conduct such tests. Proposed new section 132(1)(b) generally replicates for persons conducting driving instruction tests the provisions in section 89(3)(b) of the Act in respect of persons conducting licence-acquisition driving tests.
Amendment No. 8 makes more explicit the scope of the proposed new section 132 regulation-making powers. It also extends the provision by permitting the Secretary of State to charge reasonable fees in connection with the initial and continuing approval of persons who may conduct driving instruction examinations. The effect of amendment No. 8 is to extend to that class of examiners many of the provisions contained in amendment No. 6 that apply to persons conducting licence-acquisition driving tests.
Amendment No. 9 creates an offence where a person with intent to deceive forges a document evidencing the passing of a driving instruction examination, or part of an examination, required by regulations under proposed new section 132. Amendment No. 10 creates an offence where a person knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a document evidencing the passing of a driving instruction examination, or part of an examination, required by regulations under proposed new section 132. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are prudent measures to discourage those who might otherwise consider abusing the driving instructor examination arrangements.
I am sure that the Committee is now far wiser about what each of the amendments is intended to do.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for making such rapid progress. I am sure that the Committee is wiser—although it may not be so at this precise moment. It is my understanding that the Government are taking powers to ensure the continuing competence of driving examiners. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in clause 36, page 44, line 27, leave out “paragraph (b)” and insert “that paragraph”.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in clause 36, page 44, line 29, after “surrender”, insert
‘in the presence of a police constable,’.
This is a probing amendment that would require a police constable to be present when a driving licence is surrendered. I understand that under the current law a licence can only be surrendered directly to a constable, and I would like the Minister to explain a little more clearly the prescribed circumstances in which a licence would be surrendered. Is it appropriate that an official should be responsible for removing the licence? Even though it might be counterfeit, the person with it might become obstructive or difficult, and might even get violent.

Stephen Ladyman: The reason why we need to change the law in the way that we propose is, quite simply, that the current arrangements do not work. Where a driving examiner identifies a suspect licence, they contact the police. Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, the police cannot always respond before the individual has left the test centre. Sometimes, they do not regard it as their highest priority to attend the test centre immediately, and the individual will simply disappear with the suspect licence. We hope to help crack down on fraud by giving the examiner the power to remove the licence in such circumstances. Of course, if the licence turns out not to be suspect, the matter would be rectified. However, it is not proving practical to require a police constable to be present all the time, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Owen Paterson: That was a helpful explanation. We actually proposed that the constable should be present when the licence was confiscated, but I understand what the Minister is getting at. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in clause 36, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
‘(e)after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d)for tests of competence to drive—
(i)to include questions designed to ensure that a person submitting himself for a test has a sufficient level of understanding of and competence in appropriate first aid skills; and
(ii)to require such a person to satisfy the person conducting that test that he has a sufficient level of understanding and competence in appropriate first aid skills.”.’.
On Second Reading, we discussed the role of first aid in the driving test, and the Opposition feel strongly about the issue. We support making two simple changes to the theory section of the test to increase the amount of first aid in the question and answer test and to introduce an element of first aid into the hazard perception test.
The background to the issue is simple. On average, as we noted on Second Reading, nine people are killed on the roads each day, and many thousands are injured each year. The vital point, however, is that half of all deaths in road traffic accidents occur before the emergency services arrive. That emphasises the potential for those at the scene to make a real difference. In all cases involving life-threatening conditions, the first 10 minutes are the most crucial if a life is to be saved. Ordinary members of the public who are at the scene might be able to do a few simple things to save a life and they should know what those are so that they can make that intervention.
On Second Reading, I referred to research carried out by Hussain and Redmond in 1994 on whether pre-hospital deaths from accidents were preventable. Their findings, which were published in the British Medical Journal, were astonishing. Some of the injuries in a road traffic are so horrific that the likelihood of survival is very slight. However, the research found that of the significant proportion of cases in which accident victims could have survived, up to 85 per cent. involved simple factors, such as a blocked airway—the lives of those involved could have been saved had the people present at the scene known how to unblock an airway.
That is a key point. A driver who has been involved in an accident might be unconscious and slumped over the steering wheel. They might have no serious injuries, but their head might be bent forward and their airway might be blocked. If it is lucky, the ambulance might arrive in eight minutes, although, as we discussed on other amendments this morning, it could be up to 20 minutes in the country. However, the driver’s luck might have run out, because it takes less than four minutes for a blocked airway to kill. If a bystander or someone involved in the incident could step forward, however, and do something as simple as tilting the driver’s head backwards, that would unblock the driver’s airway and allow them to stay alive until an ambulance arrived.
The Hussain and Redmond research concluded:
“Training in first aid should be available more widely, and particularly to motorists as many prehospital deaths that could be prevented are due to road accidents”.
Other common problems following road traffic accidents might include severe bleeding and unconsciousness. In both cases, the remedies can be extremely simple: with bleeding, the remedy is applying pressure to a wound and elevating it; and with an unconscious person who is breathing, the remedy is turning them on their side to ensure that they do not choke on their tongue or vomit.
The amendment does not expect new drivers to become paramedics overnight. We are talking about rudimentary first aid skills, which are easy to learn and easy to recall and which would simply give the motorist the power to recognise what the problem might be. The amendment is focused on new drivers for a very good reason: drivers under the age of 29 make up more than a third of those involved in accidents; and drivers between 17 and 20 are six times more likely to be involved in a collision that causes injury than a driver aged 40. The driving test is an ideal time to learn the basic skill of first aid.
The issue of liability may be raised by the Minister. That was discussed in another place. The amendment does not place any obligation on drivers to perform first aid. If there is an accident and a driver does not feel comfortable intervening, there is no requirement to do so. However, it is highly unlikely that a successful claim could be made against a member of the public for trying to help an injured person. By giving first aid to a person, one owes a duty of care to carry out that first aid in accordance with one’s knowledge, training and experience. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there is no case law to support the notion that lay people can be sued for trying to be a good samaritan and trying to save someone’s life.
There are increasing calls from organisations such as the British Red Cross and St. John Ambulance for bystanders to do something rather than nothing. That has been given added impetus by the latest scientific findings on the value of bystanders taking prompt action, rather than dithering, trying to remember details about precise technique or doing nothing. For example, the latest guidelines from the European Resuscitation Council in 2005 state:
“It follows that outcomes could be improved if bystanders who would otherwise do nothing, were encouraged to begin resuscitation”.
The case for increasing the level of rudimentary first aid knowledge among new drivers is overwhelming. That happens in other countries. Let us take Slovenia, where a first aid course has to be taken and a certificate produced in order to gain a licence. In Slovakia, one is required to attend lectures from a doctor on first aid issues and to have both theory and practical tests.
Our amendment goes nothing like as far as that; it is much more modest. As the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, the theory section of the driving test already contains an element of first aid. New drivers are likely to get one question on first aid or accident management. However, that is hardly a great motivation for learner drivers to take the issue of first aid seriously.
The Minister also mentioned that the Driving Standards Agency has been working with the British Red Cross to try to find practical solutions. In another place, Lord Davies referred to those discussions:
“We thought that its case had been made and that we would need to extend questions in the theory part of the driving test to include more on first aid”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 1609.]
We strongly support an increase in questions on first aid in the theory test. We also think that there is a strong case for introducing a first aid scenario into the hazard perception test—the interactive, computer-based part of the theory test.
We heard that the Minister was in Brussels yesterday. I understand that the Government are already working on first aid education and testing for commercial drivers through EU directive 2003/59/EC. The directive, which will be implemented by 2008, requires commercial drivers to gain a certificate of professional competence, which includes a mandatory section on assessing emergency situations, assisting casualties and giving first aid. I think that the Government are considering using interactive technology to test first aid competence in that case.
If such skills are clearly acknowledged to be valuable for the drivers of buses and lorries, surely extending first aid education to all new drivers would be better and would improve safety on Britain’s roads. That sums it up. We believe that more questions on basic first aid in the theory test and a scene on first aid in the hazard perception test would encourage new drivers to learn basic life-saving skills. The amendment would strengthen those elements in the driving test.

Tom Harris: I support the spirit of the amendment. I welcome the hon. Member for North Shropshire and his right hon. and hon. Friends to the politics of the nanny state. Is that a new departure for the new model Conservative party—supporting such Government intrusion into private lives? It should be welcomed.
Obviously, the Government must look for opportunities to encourage individuals to embark on first aid courses, and to increase their understanding of, and ability to perform, first aid. I support wholeheartedly the campaign on that by the British Red Cross and the work that it does with St. John Ambulance. I am grateful to the Red Cross for supplying information for the debate today, as I am sure is the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who clearly has the same briefing paper.
I sat and passed my test in 1982 and so I have never taken the theory test. I have limited knowledge therefore about how the theory paper works. However, it would seem to be eminently sensible to increase the likelihood that someone taking the test will have a first aid question put to them, although I am not sure how the logistics of that would work. We should be pushing at an open door. After all, this is the Road Safety Bill, and if now is not the appropriate time to talk about increasing individuals’ first aid expertise, I am not sure when would be.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned that because he had passed his test some time a go, it was reasonable to assume that had he been coached in and tested on first aid techniques, he would, by now, have forgotten most of them. That is a valid point, but it is also valid to expect that the vast majority of people, having learned some of the rudimentary first aid skills at an early age, would hang on to most of those throughout their lives, even if they lost some of the more detailed ones.
Of course, if we passed the amendment, only vastly younger drivers taking the test for the first time would be affected. It would be hoped that, over the years, as more and more people took the new test, the skill level and the proportion of the driving population with an understanding of such skills would increase.
I understand that the Minister might resist the amendment, or ask the Committee to reject it. The wording of the amendment might be one of the reasons for that. From a legal point of view—not for the first time in Committee, I shall boast of the fact that I am not a lawyer—I am not sure that “sufficient level of understanding” has any meaning. An “appropriate level of understanding” might have been a better use of words, but it is of course up to the Minister to decide whether that is an ambiguous phrase.
The Driving Standards Agency is to review the test. Even if we do not put in the Bill the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, we have an ideal opportunity to look again at the test and to highlight the importance of first aid. Occasionally, people taking the test have to answer a first aid question, but we have an opportunity to say to future candidates that there definitely will be, for example, at least four questions on first aid. That would encourage people to learn basic first aid, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to assure us that he will at least consider making what would be a small but important change to the future driving test.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right; I will encourage the Committee to reject the amendment. That is not because I do not have sympathy for it. The Government support strongly the raising of the level of first aid proficiency in the population, but if the objective is to ensure that the population of the country is better informed about first aid, the driving test is not the appropriate place to force it on them. By all means let us campaign to include first aid in the national curriculum. By all means let us make courses widely available for people who wish to attend. But let us not try to tag it on to a test that tests only people’s competence to drive without causing accidents.
That is not to say that the subject should have no part in the test. It should, which is why we include a substantial number of questions relating to first aid and accident management in the question bank from which questions are drawn for the theory test. It is therefore likely that those taking the test will have questions on first aid and accident management. Anybody who is swotting for the test must assume that they can reasonably expect to be asked such questions, and must therefore have learned the basics of first aid and accident management.
We are already doing quite a bit to encourage people to be aware of what they can do in an accident situation. However, making a golden question out of first aid is a disproportionate response, because it will test people on something completely divorced from their driving skills. That will have an impact on their ability to get a driving licence, when the failure rate for driving tests is already significant. The pass rate is only 43 per cent. Failure affects people’s employment and their quality of life.
The rigid provisions in amendment No. 83, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) has sympathy, are not appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that that does not mean that we cannot do anything. DfT officials have had meetings with the British Red Cross and St. John Ambulance to discuss the possibility of increasing the number of questions in the test and other ways that we might reform it to ensure that people have more experience of first aid matters.
I have even made an offer to those organisations. We are prepared to consider the cost of distributing an interactive DVD on first aid and accident management in the learning materials that we routinely sell through bookshops and stationers. People use those learning materials to swot for the hazard perception test and the theory test. A pack of interactive DVDs for those tests retails at around £8. If it will not substantially increase the cost of that pack to include an equivalent interactive DVD on first aid, I am prepared to consider it. I am not making any commitment, but I am prepared to consider it and any other ideas that St. John Ambulance and the British Red Cross might come up with. However, I am not prepared to make it an absolutely rigid requirement that people should be tested on something that is essentially ancillary to their driving skills. I hope that after those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Owen Paterson: I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. My point was that the most basic, elementary knowledge of first aid can save lives—I mentioned the four minutes.
In the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South, I think that there might be support in the House for my amendment. I am happy to acknowledge my total indebtedness to the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance for their briefing and background information. I should like to discuss it further with them and return to the subject on Report. For the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Disqualification until test is passed

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in clause 37, page 46, line 4, after ‘fit’, insert
‘and make public their representations.”’.
We want all the statements and declarations of the representative organisations, once they have been consulted, to be made public. We simply want to know the range of opinion and that the Government have not cherry-picked the opinions.
While the Minister is on his feet, will he also address our concerns about subsection (3), which says that the Secretary of State may prescribe, by regulation, the circumstances relating to “appropriate driving test”? As he knows, Opposition Members do not like  regulation or statutory instruments and would prefer much of the detail to be explained ideally in the Bill but certainly in Committee. Will the Minister go into that in more detail?

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, I encourage the Committee to resist the amendment. I cannot immediately provide the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I am happy to write to him to clarify the situation. I hope that that will be sufficient reassurance to enable him to seek to withdraw what I am sure is only a probing amendment.

Owen Paterson: It is a probing amendment, but that is a pretty unsatisfactory explanation. Given the hour, I shall graciously seek to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to get a detailed letter on the questions that I put to the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Roy.]
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Seven o’clock till Tuesday 18 April at half-past Four o’clock.